Monthly Archives: October 2006

Post navigation

Governments are voted out of office never in. Third terms are always the hardest. The pendulum is on the rebound but is the magnetron strong enough to cause an unplanned 1999 Kennett style upset. Bracks/Brumby have run a good show overall. They have shown restraint and professional responsibility. There is no reason to throw them out of office. Labor will lose around 5 to 12 seats max. It may even consolidate hold on some. Electors are also mindful that with a Liberal Federal Government with absolute power in Canberra a Labor State Government is a good way of keeping the Howard Liberal Federal Government in check. Now is not the time to change lanes. Legislative CouncilIn terms of the upper house you should look closer at a comparison we did with the 2004 Victorian senate vote. Yes I am aware that there is a difference in voting between Federal and State elections. BUT the senate vote is the same system of election as the new upper-house system. Voters when faced with the above-the-line senate style ballot paper will fall into old habits. The 2004 senate results was the Liberal party’s high and the ALP’s low. The Greens failed to generate enough steam to climb the hill. Whilst they are strong in one seat they will only win on the back of preferences which are still under discussion. Once the party above-the-line registration is finalized and hopefully backed up by a credible public opinion poll based on voter intentions in the eight new upper-house electorates we should know the outcome. +/-2%

The Greening of Melbourne

The Greens have an outside chance of an upset in Melbourne but even then its a big ask.

Melbourne has seen a demographic shift which, if they can reproduce the 2002 result, might, and its not certain, favor them. The Greens came close in 2002 only because the Liberal Party polled badly. The same can not be said for this election. The pendulum is on the rebound (although slowly). The Liberal Party should out poll the Greens

The Liberal Party can not afford this time to hold back their vote, to create an upset, as was the case in 2002. All parties need to maximise their vote state-wide not just to maximise their chances in the upper-house but to also secure valuable public campaign funding.

For the Greens to win Melbourne they will need every preference to go their way and they will need to top the Liberal Party who would need to be below 25% primary vote. A big ask. There is no news as to if Kevin Chamberlain will re-contest the seat of Melbourne.

The main upset in this election will be the Greens failure to cross the line as happened in the 2004 senate vote.

Prahran is the inner city seat to watch. It has always been the inner-city litmus test. Labor held it under Cain and also holds it now. It is vulnerable to a 5-6% swing and yes the Greens can influence the outcome but they will not win it. (It is easier for a smaller based party to win a safe seat then a marginal seat. The key being the weakness of one of the major parties which are always seen as the one to beat and attract lower preferences then other minor parties) Eltham is another seat that comes to my mind worth watching. Ivanhoe may alsoi see a big shift in support.

The Greens will not cross the line in the lower-house for reasons I have highlighted above. More analysis and public scrutiny on the Greens, its structure and policies will be more negative then positive. Their record on governance issues in the City of Melbourne is not good with the Greens supporting the holding illegal meetings of Council behind closed doors. David Risstrom, who was a candidate of note, is not running in this election.

John So – Big Fish in small Pond syndrome

There was a rumor about John So entering the field but I think he will opt not to run. John can not win Melbourne. He is a big fish in a small pond. At the age of 60 he might decide to have a go in the 2007 Senate election in the hope of extending his shelf life and influence but such a move would require him to hand over the keys to the limo, the mayoral chains and robes. (Something John might not want to give up just yet) John So’s resignation would costs the City of Melbourne over one million dollars to hold a by-election, a cost that would rebound against him. But as they say it is not over until the fat lady sings.

Governments are voted out of office never in. Third terms are always the hardest. The pendulum is on the rebound but is the magnetron strong enough to cause an unplanned 1999 Kennett style upset. Bracks/Brumby have run a good show overall. They have shown restraint and professional responsibility. There is no reason to throw them out of office. Labor will lose around 5 to 12 seats max. It may even consolidate hold on some. Electors are also mindful that with a Liberal Federal Government with absolute power in Canberra a Labor State Government is a good way of keeping the Howard Liberal Federal Government in check. Now is not the time to change lanes. Legislative CouncilIn terms of the upper house you should look closer at a comparison we did with the 2004 Victorian senate vote. Yes I am aware that there is a difference in voting between Federal and State elections. BUT the senate vote is the same system of election as the new upper-house system. Voters when faced with the above-the-line senate style ballot paper will fall into old habits. The 2004 senate results was the Liberal party’s high and the ALP’s low. The Greens failed to generate enough steam to climb the hill. Whilst they are strong in one seat they will only win on the back of preferences which are still under discussion. Once the party above-the-line registration is finalized and hopefully backed up by a credible public opinion poll based on voter intentions in the eight new upper-house electorates we should know the outcome. +/-2%

The Greening of Melbourne

The Greens have an outside chance of an upset in Melbourne but even then its a big ask.

Melbourne has seen a demographic shift which, if they can reproduce the 2002 result, might, and its not certain, favor them. The Greens came close in 2002 only because the Liberal Party polled badly. The same can not be said for this election. The pendulum is on the rebound (although slowly). The Liberal Party should out poll the Greens

The Liberal Party can not afford this time to hold back their vote, to create an upset, as was the case in 2002. All parties need to maximise their vote state-wide not just to maximise their chances in the upper-house but to also secure valuable public campaign funding.

For the Greens to win Melbourne they will need every preference to go their way and they will need to top the Liberal Party who would need to be below 25% primary vote. A big ask. There is no news as to if Kevin Chamberlain will re-contest the seat of Melbourne.

The main upset in this election will be the Greens failure to cross the line as happened in the 2004 senate vote.

Prahran is the inner city seat to watch. It has always been the inner-city litmus test. Labor held it under Cain and also holds it now. It is vulnerable to a 5-6% swing and yes the Greens can influence the outcome but they will not win it. (It is easier for a smaller based party to win a safe seat then a marginal seat. The key being the weakness of one of the major parties which are always seen as the one to beat and attract lower preferences then other minor parties) Eltham is another seat that comes to my mind worth watching. Ivanhoe may alsoi see a big shift in support.

The Greens will not cross the line in the lower-house for reasons I have highlighted above. More analysis and public scrutiny on the Greens, its structure and policies will be more negative then positive. Their record on governance issues in the City of Melbourne is not good with the Greens supporting the holding illegal meetings of Council behind closed doors. David Risstrom, who was a candidate of note, is not running in this election.

John So – Big Fish in small Pond syndrome

There was a rumor about John So entering the field but I think he will opt not to run. John can not win Melbourne. He is a big fish in a small pond. At the age of 60 he might decide to have a go in the 2007 Senate election in the hope of extending his shelf life and influence but such a move would require him to hand over the keys to the limo, the mayoral chains and robes. (Something John might not want to give up just yet) John So’s resignation would costs the City of Melbourne over one million dollars to hold a by-election, a cost that would rebound against him. But as they say it is not over until the fat lady sings.

Governments are voted out of office never in. Third terms are always the hardest. The pendulum is on the rebound but is the magnetron strong enough to cause an unplanned 1999 Kennett style upset. Bracks/Brumby have run a good show overall. They have shown restraint and professional responsibility. There is no reason to throw them out of office. Labor will lose around 5 to 12 seats max. It may even consolidate hold on some. Electors are also mindful that with a Liberal Federal Government with absolute power in Canberra a Labor State Government is a good way of keeping the Howard Liberal Federal Government in check. Now is not the time to change lanes. Legislative CouncilIn terms of the upper house you should look closer at a comparison we did with the 2004 Victorian senate vote. Yes I am aware that there is a difference in voting between Federal and State elections. BUT the senate vote is the same system of election as the new upper-house system. Voters when faced with the above-the-line senate style ballot paper will fall into old habits. The 2004 senate results was the Liberal party’s high and the ALP’s low. The Greens failed to generate enough steam to climb the hill. Whilst they are strong in one seat they will only win on the back of preferences which are still under discussion. Once the party above-the-line registration is finalized and hopefully backed up by a credible public opinion poll based on voter intentions in the eight new upper-house electorates we should know the outcome. +/-2%

The Greening of Melbourne

The Greens have an outside chance of an upset in Melbourne but even then its a big ask.

Melbourne has seen a demographic shift which, if they can reproduce the 2002 result, might, and its not certain, favor them. The Greens came close in 2002 only because the Liberal Party polled badly. The same can not be said for this election. The pendulum is on the rebound (although slowly). The Liberal Party should out poll the Greens

The Liberal Party can not afford this time to hold back their vote, to create an upset, as was the case in 2002. All parties need to maximise their vote state-wide not just to maximise their chances in the upper-house but to also secure valuable public campaign funding.

For the Greens to win Melbourne they will need every preference to go their way and they will need to top the Liberal Party who would need to be below 25% primary vote. A big ask. There is no news as to if Kevin Chamberlain will re-contest the seat of Melbourne.

The main upset in this election will be the Greens failure to cross the line as happened in the 2004 senate vote.

Prahran is the inner city seat to watch. It has always been the inner-city litmus test. Labor held it under Cain and also holds it now. It is vulnerable to a 5-6% swing and yes the Greens can influence the outcome but they will not win it. (It is easier for a smaller based party to win a safe seat then a marginal seat. The key being the weakness of one of the major parties which are always seen as the one to beat and attract lower preferences then other minor parties) Eltham is another seat that comes to my mind worth watching. Ivanhoe may alsoi see a big shift in support.

The Greens will not cross the line in the lower-house for reasons I have highlighted above. More analysis and public scrutiny on the Greens, its structure and policies will be more negative then positive. Their record on governance issues in the City of Melbourne is not good with the Greens supporting the holding illegal meetings of Council behind closed doors. David Risstrom, who was a candidate of note, is not running in this election.

John So – Big Fish in small Pond syndrome

There was a rumor about John So entering the field but I think he will opt not to run. John can not win Melbourne. He is a big fish in a small pond. At the age of 60 he might decide to have a go in the 2007 Senate election in the hope of extending his shelf life and influence but such a move would require him to hand over the keys to the limo, the mayoral chains and robes. (Something John might not want to give up just yet) John So’s resignation would costs the City of Melbourne over one million dollars to hold a by-election, a cost that would rebound against him. But as they say it is not over until the fat lady sings.

Melbourne City Council is gearing up to adopt a Seventh Sister city. The City Council already has six sister cities on its books which is one more then was originally approved. The City Council had previously placed a limit on the number of Sister cities at five but this was extended in 2000/2001 to include the Italian city of Milan. Now the City Council administration is planning on adopting a new sister city this time based in Delhi, India.

We already have a smorgasbord of international cuisines including Japanese Osaka sushi; Chinese Tianjin stir fried, Greek Thessaloniki salad, American Boston buns, Russian St Petersburg borsh and Italian Milan pizza on the menu. Now they want authentic Indian Delhi curry. All are in the northern hemisphere not one in the south. Create a virtual foster family and forget expanding the sister city program.With every sister city the extent of opportunity for our city council to travel abroad increases as does the Council’s overseas travel costs.With every new Sister City our existing sister city relationships begin to suffer. We should not adopt another. Enough is enough. Melbourne must say no to another sister city. Already the existing siblings are suffering from a lack of attention with China being the latest exotic must visit destination.

Oblivious of the costs John So is prepared to spend up big on what ever comes his way. If the City of Melbourne is allowed to increase the number of sister cities then we can expect that India will be the next exotic destination for our City Councillors and staff to spend corporate, ratepayer funded, holidays abroad.

Under John So’s leadership our City Council has become the biggest spending Council in the history of Melbourne and John So shows no sign of fiscal restraint. John So is willing to close his eyes and block his ears to a Greater Melbourne at home but is happy to expand Melbourne abroad. John So should put the idea of another sister city to a referendum of ratepayers along with the full costs and implications of having a new sibling and see if ratepayers support his global expansion plans.

Melbourne City Council is gearing up to adopt a Seventh Sister city. The City Council already has six sister cities on its books which is one more then was originally approved. The City Council had previously placed a limit on the number of Sister cities at five but this was extended in 2000/2001 to include the Italian city of Milan. Now the City Council administration is planning on adopting a new sister city this time based in Delhi, India.

We already have a smorgasbord of international cuisines including Japanese Osaka sushi; Chinese Tianjin stir fried, Greek Thessaloniki salad, American Boston buns, Russian St Petersburg borsh and Italian Milan pizza on the menu. Now they want authentic Indian Delhi curry. All are in the northern hemisphere not one in the south. Create a virtual foster family and forget expanding the sister city program.With every sister city the extent of opportunity for our city council to travel abroad increases as does the Council’s overseas travel costs.With every new Sister City our existing sister city relationships begin to suffer. We should not adopt another. Enough is enough. Melbourne must say no to another sister city. Already the existing siblings are suffering from a lack of attention with China being the latest exotic must visit destination.

Oblivious of the costs John So is prepared to spend up big on what ever comes his way. If the City of Melbourne is allowed to increase the number of sister cities then we can expect that India will be the next exotic destination for our City Councillors and staff to spend corporate, ratepayer funded, holidays abroad.

Under John So’s leadership our City Council has become the biggest spending Council in the history of Melbourne and John So shows no sign of fiscal restraint. John So is willing to close his eyes and block his ears to a Greater Melbourne at home but is happy to expand Melbourne abroad. John So should put the idea of another sister city to a referendum of ratepayers along with the full costs and implications of having a new sibling and see if ratepayers support his global expansion plans.

Melbourne City Council’s big spenders based on information the published City of Melbourne Travel Register. 2 December 2004 to 30 September 2006.

* Note there are a number if questions outstanding in relation to the accuracy of the published data. (See previous post) When the CIty Council repsonds to our query we will update this list if required.

Melbourne City Council’s big spenders based on information the published City of Melbourne Travel Register. 2 December 2004 to 30 September 2006.

* Note there are a number if questions outstanding in relation to the accuracy of the published data. (See previous post) When the CIty Council repsonds to our query we will update this list if required.

Melbourne City Council is gearing up to adopt a Seventh Sister city. The City Council already has six sister cities on its books which is one more then was originally approved. The City Council had previously placed a limit on the number of Sister cities at five but this was extended in 2000/2001 to include the Italian city of Milan. Now the City Council administration is planning on adopting a new sister city this time based in Delhi, India.

We already have a smorgasbord of international cuisines including Japanese Osaka sushi; Chinese Tianjin stir fried, Greek Thessaloniki salad, American Boston buns, Russian St Petersburg borsh and Italian Milan pizza on the menu. Now they want authentic Indian Delhi curry. All are in the northern hemisphere not one in the south. Create a virtual foster family and forget expanding the sister city program.With every sister city the extent of opportunity for our city council to travel abroad increases as does the Council’s overseas travel costs.With every new Sister City our existing sister city relationships begin to suffer. We should not adopt another. Enough is enough. Melbourne must say no to another sister city. Already the existing siblings are suffering from a lack of attention with China being the latest exotic must visit destination.

Oblivious of the costs John So is prepared to spend up big on what ever comes his way. If the City of Melbourne is allowed to increase the number of sister cities then we can expect that India will be the next exotic destination for our City Councillors and staff to spend corporate, ratepayer funded, holidays abroad.

Under John So’s leadership our City Council has become the biggest spending Council in the history of Melbourne and John So shows no sign of fiscal restraint. John So is willing to close his eyes and block his ears to a Greater Melbourne at home but is happy to expand Melbourne abroad. John So should put the idea of another sister city to a referendum of ratepayers along with the full costs and implications of having a new sibling and see if ratepayers support his global expansion plans.

Statistical information complied from data published in the City Council’s Travel Register from 2 December 2004 to 30 September 2006

* Please note there are a number of issues that we are seeking clarification on from the City Council related to accuracy of data published by the City Council. (Missing data) When and if the City Council respond to our query we will update these statistics to reflect any change that may result. All records published to date are reflected in the statistics below. The costs associated with Councillors Travel does not coincide with information published in the Councillor expense statements. We acknowledge the inaccuracy of the Council’s data and are seeking clarification as to the discrepancies identified.

Statistical information complied from data published in the City Council’s Travel Register from 2 December 2004 to 30 September 2006

* Please note there are a number of issues that we are seeking clarification on from the City Council related to accuracy of data published by the City Council. (Missing data) When and if the City Council respond to our query we will update these statistics to reflect any change that may result. All records published to date are reflected in the statistics below. The costs associated with Councillors Travel does not coincide with information published in the Councillor expense statements. We acknowledge the inaccuracy of the Council’s data and are seeking clarification as to the discrepancies identified.